Rajasthan High Court
Pankaj Jain Son Of Shri Nemichand Jain vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:3314) on 19 January, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:3314]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 83/2024
Pankaj Jain Son Of Shri Nemichand Jain, Resident Of Jai Trading
Company, Bajaj Road, Sikar Police Station Kotwali Sikar, Tehsil
And District Sikar Rajasthan.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Avinash Sharma Son Of Madhusudan Sharma, Resident Of
Balram Nagar, Behind Police Line, Sikar (Rajasthan).
----Non-Petitioner/Complainant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Dadhich for
Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, GA
cum AAG assisted by
Mr. Tayyab Ali
Mr. Riyasat Ali, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
19/01/2024
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC
has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated
04.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Sikar (for brevity "the learned Revisional Court") in CIS
No.52/2023 whereby, while dismissing the revision petition, the
order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Sikar (hereinafter referred to as "the
learned trial Court") in CIS No.284/2021 dismissing an application
filed by the accused-petitioner (for short "the petitioner") under
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity "the Act
of 1872"), has been affirmed.
[2024:RJ-JP:3314] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-83/2024]
The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is
facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1881"), filed an
application under Section 73 of the Act of 1872 stating therein
that since, it is alleged in the complaint that name of the
complainant in the cheque was filled in by the accused himself
which is factually incorrect, the cheque may be subjected to
examination by the handwriting expert. The application was
dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.09.2023
which has been affirmed by the learned Revisional Court vide
order dated 04.11.2023 while dismissing the revision petition
preferred by the petitioner.
Assailing the impugned order, the only contention advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that not only in the
complaint; but, in his statement also, the complainant has stated
that the cheque was handed over to him by the petitioner duly
filled in. He submits that in view of denial of the petitioner to have
filled in name of the complainant in the cheque, it was incumbent
upon the learned trial Court to have allowed the application filed
by him for subjecting the cheque in question to examination by
the handwriting expert.
Heard. Considered.
While dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, the
learned trial Court has observed that since, the petitioner has not
denied that the subject cheque did not bear his signature, in view
of provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1881, it was not required
to subject the cheque for examination by the handwriting expert.
The revision petition preferred thereagainst has also been
[2024:RJ-JP:3314] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-83/2024]
dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated
04.11.2023. It was observed by the learned Revisional Court that
since, it was admitted by the petitioner during the course of
arguments that the subject cheque was signed by him and the
amount was also filled in by him; prayer of the petitioner for
subjecting the cheque to examination by the handwriting expert
was not liable to be accepted.
This Court does not find the order impugned to be suffering
from any such illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference
of this Court under Section 482 CrPC after dismissal of the
revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order
dated 16.09.2023 inasmuch as it is trite law that cheque is not
required to be in the handwriting of the drawer.
Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed
being devoid of merit.
However, looking to the long life of the pending litigation, the
learned trial Court is directed to expedite its disposal.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/437
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
